[DEFEATED] Insta-Repeal "Drug Decriminalization Act"

[Goobergunchia]

Repeal Drug Decriminalization Act

Category; Repeal

Target Resolution; GA #577

Esteemed members of the World Assembly;

Complimenting the continued progress of this esteemed body towards the betterment of its member nations,

Lamenting the potential of the Drug Decriminalization Act to be a significant and progressive piece of legislation, hampered by the flaws present within,

Highlighting the fallacies present in the legislation early on, including the assertion that decriminalization is demonstrated to reduce negative societal effects when the reality is that statistics naturally reflect a reduction in drug related offences but show a marked increase in petty street crimes in order to feed a dependency that prevails regardless of the lawful status of drugs,

Disheartened by the political and polarizing statement that "drug possession charges are a favored tool of legal authorities and governments seeking to marginalize or suppress minorities and political opposition to their governments," when the reality is that possession charges are preferred against a person in possession of drugs in the same way speeding tickets are preferred against persons speeding. The enforcement of laws against criminal offenders and the disproportionate targeting of minority groups are in no way the same thing nor are they addressable by the decriminalization of drugs as this resolution would have nations believe,

Disgusted that the target legislation resorted to polarizing statements such as "authorities are often empowered by the continued criminalization of recreational drug possession to commit violence and other indignities against even non-marginalized demographics," and that the legislation in question would have members believe that decriminalization of drugs would address and end systematic or endemic issues of corruption in the fields that it might exist,

Noting that clause 1(b)(i) in its definition of drug possession provides a defense to individuals involved in the sale and supply and/or trafficking of controlled drugs as the prima facie requirement is "monetary or personal gain" which may not always be immediately evident or easily substantiated in a court of law,

Perplexed by the concept of "malicious intent" in clause 1(b)(ii) and worried that legislation with ambiguity inevitably always favors those who would corrupt it,

Lamenting that clause 3a, sweepingly and broadly mandates the decriminalization of drugs for the purpose of "simple possession" without any consideration towards mitigating factors eg; The quantity of a controlled drug in a persons possession, nature of the adverse effects or addictive nature of said controlled drug or classification of the drug in question,

Saddened that a resolution that alludes to offender recidivism, societal participation and recommends the benefits of pardons has taken no positive steps towards addressing the root cause of drug possession, drug trafficking and black market trade i.e; addiction,

Believing that this legislation spends more time highlighting and targeting systematic societal problems with emotive language and incendiary claims rather than the issue it is purporting to address and thus executing its purpose poorly,

Hereby deems the Drug Decriminalization Act, Resolution #577, unfit for purpose and accordingly repeals same.

RE: Queries since raised;

• Do I support a replacement?
  Not really, but I wont actively campaign against a good one, this one does not meet that criteria for me
• Are you going to draft a replacement?
  No. I don't believe a replacement is required in lieu of striking bad legislation off the books
• But, isn't it better than nothing?
  No.
• Do you have an issue with the author?
  Fuck no. And GENERALLY nothing Abacathea ever undertakes is motivated against a player or nation.

[Bananaistan]

"Support."

[Hulldom]

EvR: "The delegation from Hulldom supports this as well."

OOC: target listed is wrong.

[Abacathea]

EvR: "The delegation from Hulldom supports this as well."

OOC: target listed is wrong.

Good catch!

[The Python]

OOC: When I saw this thread title, I assumed it would be you and... I was right xD

IC: "Is the Abacathean Delegation interested in replacing the Drug Decriminalization Act if it passes?"

[Untecna]

"I agree with the ambassador for the Python. If you get this passed, shall you replace it? I would suppose not, since you claim fallacies exist."

[Tinhampton]

9283746975834530296562374653240795623450623478956203497652308745032498752347632485% support.

[Abacathea]

OOC: When I saw this thread title, I assumed it would be you and... I was right xD

IC: "Is the Abacathean Delegation interested in replacing the Drug Decriminalization Act if it passes?"

OOC: And why? I'm hardly the Resolution Sniper I used to be

IC: No dear ambassador, in a rare move for this delegation, and it is extrmely rare we, believe this to be left to individual nations to legislate for.

[Abacathea]

"I agree with the ambassador for the Python. If you get this passed, shall you replace it? I would suppose not, since you claim fallacies exist."

My claiming of fallacies Ambassador has nothing to do with my ability or desire to replace it. Politicizing and making unsubstantiated claims in a draft to help it to quorum and to vote is wrong and incorrect. Whether you intended it or not, your comment appears snarky and insincere and we would like the record to reflect our position in regards to same.

[The Python]

IC: No dear ambassador, in a rare move for this delegation, and it is extrmely rare we, believe this to be left to individual nations to legislate for.

"The Pythonian Delegation strongly believes in Decriminalisation, and requires a substantial replacement to have been drafted to be able to support this."

[Abacathea]

IC: No dear ambassador, in a rare move for this delegation, and it is extrmely rare we, believe this to be left to individual nations to legislate for.

"The Pythonian Delegation strongly believes in Decriminalisation, and requires a substantial replacement to have been drafted to be able to support this."

The Abacathean Delegation however does not believe that;

A: A one size fits all resolution is suitable to this issue.

B: The lack of a suitable replacement is grounds for retaining poor legislation on the books.

We also believe this is an issue that falls to each respective nation to address as they see fit and far more comprehensively if they so desire it.

We will be actively pursuing this legislation on the grounds that the target resolution is unfit for purpose.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Disgusted that the author... would have members believe that decriminalization of drugs would address and end systematic or endemic issues of corruption in the fields that it might exist...

"Yes, I, too, am disgusted when authors want people to believe things that are true."

Leo smirks annoyingly, like any 'gotcha' thrower does.

"Factually, legal prohibition of high-demand commodities is strongly correlated with law enforcement corruption. This is extremely prevalent not only in states that outlaw drugs, but also in any state that rations foodstuffs and any state that outlaws books or other countries' radio broadcasts. While prohibition is certainly not the entire cause of endemic corruption, it is one of the major sources of the black market money needed to sustain it. I hardly think it's worth getting in a tizzy over a resolution pointing that out."

[Untecna]

Disgusted that the author... would have members believe that decriminalization of drugs would address and end systematic or endemic issues of corruption in the fields that it might exist...

"Yes, I, too, am disgusted when authors want people to believe things that are true."

Leo smirks annoyingly, like any 'gotcha' thrower does.

"Factually, legal prohibition of high-demand commodities is strongly correlated with law enforcement corruption. This is extremely prevalent not only in states that outlaw drugs, but also in any state that rations foodstuffs and any state that outlaws books or other countries' radio broadcasts. While prohibition is certainly not the entire cause of endemic corruption, it is one of the major sources of the black market money needed to sustain it. I hardly think it's worth getting in a tizzy over a resolution pointing that out."

"Ah, another 'snarky' ambassador. I'm certain this may be a good thing.

I agree with the Lyricalian delegate, prohibition just fuels people into getting more of the prohibited item. Unless you legalize something, you'll have that issue."

[Adezku]

Moving forwards and into view of the other delegates, the tall figure of the World Assembly Representative of the Tsardom of Adezku, Baron Zakharin Makarovich, cleared his throat. Stroking the long, greying-black beard that reached to his midriff, he eventually began speaking:

"By decree of His Majesty Nikolai I, august Tsar and ruler of All Adezku, the Tsardom of Adezku stands in support of this proposed repeal. This for that His Majesty firmly believes that an orderly nation is a nation wherein drugs and narcotics are properly managed and controlled by the national government; and that throwing open the doors to decriminalisation will have a destabilising effect upon the nations of the World Assembly."

[Untecna]

Moving forwards and into view of the other delegates, the tall figure of the World Assembly Representative of the Tsardom of Adezku, Baron Zakharin Makarovich, cleared his throat. Stroking the long, greying-black beard that reached to his midriff, he eventually began speaking:

"By decree of His Majesty Nikolai I, august Tsar and ruler of All Adezku, the Tsardom of Adezku stands in support of this proposed repeal. This for that His Majesty firmly believes that an orderly nation is a nation wherein drugs and narcotics are properly managed and controlled by the national government; and that throwing open the doors to decriminalisation will have a destabilising effect upon the nations of the World Assembly."

"If you don't mind my asking, Ambassador, can you elaborate on this so-called 'destabilizing' effect view you have?"

[Bananaistan]

"Yes, I, too, am disgusted when authors want people to believe things that are true."

Leo smirks annoyingly, like any 'gotcha' thrower does.

"Factually, legal prohibition of high-demand commodities is strongly correlated with law enforcement corruption. This is extremely prevalent not only in states that outlaw drugs, but also in any state that rations foodstuffs and any state that outlaws books or other countries' radio broadcasts. While prohibition is certainly not the entire cause of endemic corruption, it is one of the major sources of the black market money needed to sustain it. I hardly think it's worth getting in a tizzy over a resolution pointing that out."

"Ah, another 'snarky' ambassador. I'm certain this may be a good thing.

I agree with the Lyricalian delegate, prohibition just fuels people into getting more of the prohibited item. Unless you legalize something, you'll have that issue."

"Take this to it's logical yet dystopian conclusion, and literally nothing could be prohibited."

[Untecna]

"Ah, another 'snarky' ambassador. I'm certain this may be a good thing.

I agree with the Lyricalian delegate, prohibition just fuels people into getting more of the prohibited item. Unless you legalize something, you'll have that issue."

"Take this to it's logical yet dystopian conclusion, and literally nothing could be prohibited."

"Things may only become illegal, but even then none will do anything, either due to corruption or everyone breaking the law."

[Comfed]

First of all, some of y’all are equating decriminalization with legalization. Just because something is not treated as a matter for the police and the jails does not mean that it’s allowed.

Highlighting the fallacies present in the legislation early on including the assertion that decriminalization is demonstrated to reduce negative societal effects when the reality is that statistics naturally reflect a reduction in drug related offences but show a marked increase in petty street crimes in order to feed a dependency that prevails regardless of the lawful status of drugs,

It is correct that decriminalizing drugs does not, in itself, reduce the problems that come with drug use. However, it is true that criminalizing drugs does cause myriad social problems.

Disheartened by the political and polarizing statement that "drug possession charges are a favored tool of legal authorities and governments seeking to marginalize or suppress minorities and political opposition to their governments," when the reality is that possession charges are preferred against a person in possession of drugs in the same way speeding tickets are preferred against persons speeding. The enforcement of laws against criminal offenders and the disproportionate targeting of minority groups are in no way the same thing nor are they addressable by the decriminalization of drugs as this resolution would have nations believe,

Minorities are greatly disproportionately affected by drug law enforcement, and law enforcement in general. I am surprised that you read that decriminalizing drugs would solve that problem in the resolution.

What’s more, speeding tickets for dangerous behaviour and locking people up and throwing away the key for drug possession are not comparable.

Disgusted that the author resorted to polarizing statements such as "authorities are often empowered by the continued criminalization of recreational drug possession to commit violence and other indignities against even non-marginalized demographics," and that the author would have members believe that decriminalization of drugs would address and end systematic or endemic issues of corruption in the fields that it might exist,

Again, I don’t see anything stating that the target resolution claims that it would end discrimination as you say.

Lamenting that clause 3a, sweepingly and broadly mandates the decriminalization of drugs for the purpose of "simple possession" without any consideration towards mitigating factors eg; The quantity of a controlled drug in a persons possession, nature of the adverse effects or addictive nature of said controlled drug or classification of the drug in question,

Either you’re confusing decriminalization with legalization or you’re missing the point. Decriminalization is not intended to encourage recreational drug use and misses the mark entirely if it still punishes people for owning some kinds of drugs.

Believing that this legislation spends more time highlighting and targeting systematic societal problems with emotive language and incendiary claims rather than the issue it is purporting to address and thus executing its purpose poorly,

This isn’t a great repeal argument in general.[/quote]

And I certainly don’t support this without a replacement.

[Abacathea]

Disgusted that the author... would have members believe that decriminalization of drugs would address and end systematic or endemic issues of corruption in the fields that it might exist...

"Yes, I, too, am disgusted when authors want people to believe things that are true."

Leo smirks annoyingly, like any 'gotcha' thrower does.

"Factually, legal prohibition of high-demand commodities is strongly correlated with law enforcement corruption. This is extremely prevalent not only in states that outlaw drugs, but also in any state that rations foodstuffs and any state that outlaws books or other countries' radio broadcasts. While prohibition is certainly not the entire cause of endemic corruption, it is one of the major sources of the black market money needed to sustain it. I hardly think it's worth getting in a tizzy over a resolution pointing that out."

Your "gotcha" seems very premature considering you appear to be looking at this through the lense of an American (I presume owing to your references to states) and not beyond it.

Factually, legal prohibition of high-demand commodities is strongly correlated with law enforcement corruption".

Respectfully and equally factually corruption in Law Enforcement is often rooted far beyond the organization and more to the individual(s) perpetuating said corruption. This proposal currently at vote is weaponizing the currentl RL topical nature of current american law enforcement politic to stir emotions in favor of its IG agenda and I don't subscribe to it.

"Ah, another 'snarky' ambassador. I'm certain this may be a good thing.

I agree with the Lyricalian delegate, prohibition just fuels people into getting more of the prohibited item. Unless you legalize something, you'll have that issue."

Not lessening your snark factor ambassador.

It is accepted that prohibition potentially makes an item taboo and to a certain demographic ultimately more desirable but that does not mean legalization is the acceptable alternative remedial route. For example, to quote something else that is unlawful and prohibited, child pornography?

First of all, some of y’all are equating decriminalization with legalization. Just because something is not treated as a matter for the police and the jails does not mean that it’s allowed.

I am aware of the distinction between the two. To quote an RL example, decriminalization of Cannabis in Spain has not made it lawful to possess, if anything the possession of it can now be used as probable cause lawfully by police to further search a person, vehicle or obtain a search warrant for a premises.

Minorities are greatly disproportionately affected by drug law enforcement, and law enforcement in general. I am surprised that you read that decriminalizing drugs would solve that problem in the resolution.

What’s more, speeding tickets for dangerous behaviour and locking people up and throwing away the key for drug possession are not comparable.

Again, this issue of minorities being disproportionately affected depends on your geographical location RL, currently, as it's topical. In many countries there is not the same statistical comparison. Furthermore, the author referring to that in the original target resolution obviously means they intended the resolution to address the issue otherwise why reference it?

Also not to be glib, but speeding kills, as do drugs, so they are a reasonable comparison to make and to suggest anyone is locked up and the key thrown away over a small amount of weed is catagorically incorrect but I suggest you know that already.

Lamenting that clause 3a, sweepingly and broadly mandates the decriminalization of drugs for the purpose of "simple possession" without any consideration towards mitigating factors eg; The quantity of a controlled drug in a persons possession, nature of the adverse effects or addictive nature of said controlled drug or classification of the drug in question,

Either you’re confusing decriminalization with legalization or you’re missing the point. Decriminalization is not intended to encourage recreational drug use and misses the mark entirely if it still punishes people for owning some kinds of drugs.

I'm not missing any point, again I'm quite aware of the difference you're highlighting. I accept that the legislation at vote still addresses trafficking/sale and supply, but it removes any penalization in a very broad way for the possession in minor quantities of controlled drugs and furthermore doesn't distinguish between the two in any definitive or measurable way.

This isn’t a great repeal argument in general.

It's a closing summation, I think the draft as a whole speaks volumes.

And I certainly don’t support this without a replacement.

I'm not a proponent of a replacement generally, I believe nations can sort this themselves if they see so fit, and I've already clarified that an adequate replacement might not generate a response out of me, but as the current target legislation stands, I am against and will be moving against it accordingly.

[Honeydewistania]

Only two short clauses arguing against the mandates and the rest attacking the preamble? I’m sure you can do better

[Comfed]

Also not to be glib, but speeding kills, as do drugs, so they are a reasonable comparison to make and to suggest anyone is locked up and the key thrown away over a small amount of weed is catagorically incorrect but I suggest you know that already.

Speeding puts people besides yourself in danger.

Many people are imprisoned for mere drug possession charges.

[Bananaistan]

Also not to be glib, but speeding kills, as do drugs, so they are a reasonable comparison to make and to suggest anyone is locked up and the key thrown away over a small amount of weed is catagorically incorrect but I suggest you know that already.

Speeding puts people besides yourself in danger.

Many people are imprisoned for mere drug possession charges.

"Buying illegal drugs puts people besides yourself in danger."

[Abacathea]

Also not to be glib, but speeding kills, as do drugs, so they are a reasonable comparison to make and to suggest anyone is locked up and the key thrown away over a small amount of weed is catagorically incorrect but I suggest you know that already.

Speeding puts people besides yourself in danger.

Many people are imprisoned for mere drug possession charges.

For repeated drug possession charges perhaps, or you're focusing on your own jurisdiction, I can confirm within my own that isn't the case. As for danger, drug addiction results in, drug related feuds, drug debt intimidation, increase in organized crime gang activity, financial issues on family and friends, theft, burglary, robbery, I could go on...

[Imperium Anglorum]

Support.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Yes, I, too, am disgusted when authors want people to believe things that are true."

Leo smirks annoyingly, like any 'gotcha' thrower does.

"Factually, legal prohibition of high-demand commodities is strongly correlated with law enforcement corruption. This is extremely prevalent not only in states that outlaw drugs, but also in any state that rations foodstuffs and any state that outlaws books or other countries' radio broadcasts. While prohibition is certainly not the entire cause of endemic corruption, it is one of the major sources of the black market money needed to sustain it. I hardly think it's worth getting in a tizzy over a resolution pointing that out."

Your "gotcha" seems very premature considering you appear to be looking at this through the lense of an American (I presume owing to your references to states) and not beyond it.

Factually, legal prohibition of high-demand commodities is strongly correlated with law enforcement corruption".

Respectfully and equally factually corruption in Law Enforcement is often rooted far beyond the organization and more to the individual(s) perpetuating said corruption. This proposal currently at vote is weaponizing the currentl RL topical nature of current american law enforcement politic to stir emotions in favor of its IG agenda and I don't subscribe to it.

"A state is a state is a state, ambassador. Whether it subsumes itself in some silly confederacy - such an alliance being, itself, a state - or acts on its own makes no difference. A state, or country, or nation, or government, or whatever term you want to use, which outlaws something its people are willing to spend lots of money on, is going to be vulnerable to a certain amount of corruption. I don't subscribe to the Murrkin method of governance, and frankly no one should. It's not parochial for the World Assembly to acknowledge that trade in illegal drugs is one major funding source of corruption in security forces, no matter what method of governance you subscribe to."

"The state" is "the government." If someone said "The American state has enacted policies..." that's very clearly the federal government. Actually, by reference to books and radio, I was attempting to invoke Warsaw Pact states (countries), including the USSR, which often had rampant corruption among their various security apparatus. While you can reasonably make the OOC inference that the target is primarily coming from a North American point of view (I believe the author is Canadian?), that doesn't somehow automatically invalidate its arguments for the rest of the planet. Police corruption is a worldwide problem, and just because the rate is above zero in Portugal and Amsterdam doesn't mean illegal drug money is a negligible source.

It's telling that of the 27 occurrences of the letter string "drug" on the Wikipedia page for police corruption only three are in specific reference to the United States (one under the country heading, one as a general reference to the so-called "war on drugs," and one in the references list).